Judge lifts gag order on online critic of McDonald’s settlement

But a free-speech group says McDonald's is still trying to intimidate him.

A judge has reversed an order banning a Michigan man from criticizing a class action settlement on Facebook. A McDonald's restaurant in Dearborn, MI, allegedly advertised non-halal meat as halal, outraging Muslims who ate there. A class action lawsuit was filed, resulting in a settlement that would give money to the named plaintiff, two charities, and the plaintiff's lawyers, but not to any other Muslims who were affected.

A Muslim attorney named Majed Moughni posted a note on Facebook objecting to the settlement. Under the terms of the class action settlement, any victim who didn't object to the settlement would lose their right to sue McDonald's without receiving compensation. Moughni argued that compensation should be paid to affected McDonald's customers, not to area charities that had no real connection to the case.

But the plaintiff's lawyers, who were in line to receive thousands of dollars from the settlement, asked the judge to order Moughni's comments removed from Facebook and replaced with the official class action notification. Last month, Public Citizen agreed to represent Moughni and filed a request to lift the judge's gag order.

The plaintiff had argued that Moughni's statements were defamatory, and that he was misleading affected Muslims about their rights (or lack thereof) under the proposed settlement. Public Citizen pointed out to the court that the plaintiff's attorneys had not demonstrated that Moughni's statements were untrue. Moreover, the judge's order barred Moughni from making any comments about the settlement, which Public Citizen argued was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

On Monday, (the aptly named) Judge Kathleen MacDonald lifted the gag order. But Public Citizen said her reasoning leaves open the door to future retaliation. Rather than clearly ruling on First Amendment grounds, she accepted a request from McDonald's to drop the injunction after Moughni promised that he was not seeking to represent potential objectors.

Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy, Moughni's lawyer, wrote in a blog post that even as she lifted her gag order, "the judge proclaimed that she had done the right thing in suppressing Moughni’s speech in the first place," Levy wrote. If Wayne County judges don't change their tune, Levy suggested, "serious intervention from the appellate courts is going to be needed."

Moreover, McDonald's may not be done trying to punish Moughni for speaking out. "There have been indications that McDonald’s line of reasoning was intended to set the stage for later efforts to force Moughni to pay damages for having had the audacity to oppose the settlement," Levy wrote. McDonald's recently described Moughni as a "third-party tortfeasor", suggesting that the company might be planning further legal action against him once the settlement has been approved.

All this over... meat. And not even like horse meat, rotten mean, tainted meat, rancid meat... just meat.

This power hungry guy had a pet peeve a long time ago God told me not to eat this, not to shave my beard, to wear a turban, to pray 5 times a day, etc etc... or something very bad will happen to you after you die.

How is restricting someone's facebook post criticizing legal action not a violation of free speech?

I'm not American, have slightly different legal views around that... but that's a little scary that a random judge can just put gag orders out on fb.

The gag order wouldn't be exclusive to Facebook. They are barring the man from discussing the ongoing case in public, which is used all the time in US law. However, the reasoning for the judge laying down the gag order in this case is strange. It is usually used to keep trade secrets/confidential info secure or to protect victims in some cases.

Popehat has a nice writeup of how insane the initial gag order was, it's well worth the read. Ken White seems to have a chip on his shoulder about class action suits to begin with, so it's interesting to see a lawyer's take on it.

It disturbs me that some of the other posters do not seem to understand the seriousness of the complaint. You may not care about the reasons why people do not want to eat that meat, but that does not diminish the seriousness of McDonald's actions. In this case, the people were led to believe that the meal was prepared in a specific manner and without specific ingredients. Consumption of non-halal or non-kosher meat is not likely to cause bodily harm, however in other cases it may. If the meal had been advertised as "Non-dairy" or "No peanuts", and it did in fact contain those ingredients, it could cause someone serious injury or death. It does not matter WHY the people want to eat food of that preparation, it DOES matter that food is accurately labeled and ingredients are properly declared.

This doesn't even begin to touch upon the gag order, which is a complete violation of the 1st amendment, and brings the judge's understanding of basic constitutional rights into question. Criticism of the settlement ought to be widely distributed so that affected parties understand that they may opt-out and attempt to obtain more favorable terms if possible.

When Ahmed Ahmed filed a class action against McDonald's on the theory that they advertised halal food but sold non-halal food, reactions fell into three familiar categories. There was incoherent Gellaresque pants-wetting about how this was the harbringer of SHARIA LAW being enforced on every man, woman, child, and chicken nugget in God's Country. There were impolite suggestions that one would have to be an idiot to rely on McDonald's to abide by complex gustatory or cultural rules, and rude speculation that the natural and probable consequence of driving through McDonald's and asking for a halal meal is winding up with a week-old McRib spat in by Menachem Begin. Then there were the legal realists who suggested — correctly, as it turns out — that whatever else happens, this means money in the pockets of lawyers.

Honestly, if the advertising were regarding non-Kosher foods being sold as Kosher, would all the hubub listed in that opening paragraph ever have occurred?

Quote:

Moughni argued that compensation should be paid to affected McDonald's customers, not to area charities that had no real connection to the case.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

1) Nothing in AdamM's post implied that Muslims were the only ones, just that the Muslims were like that.

2) If you have strict dietary rules, don't fucking go to places that don't comply with those rules. To do otherwise and demand that they bend over to your rules is disrespectful, rude, and openly invites conflict.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

It's not even relevant to the case. If McDonald's advertised something as X when it was explicitly not X, then they committed fraud, full stop. Whether they ran afoul of someone's religion or just personal preference doesn't matter. The way people are just dismissing that is rather silly.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

Sure, there are plenty of picky people, including kids, but being picky shouldn't be a valid excuse to make food service staff go out of their way to accommodate (sometimes) unreasonable requests.

I used to work in the restaurant business, and we would occasionally get customers who would present a card listing what ingredients they could not eat. I would just want to ask them why the hell they would even go to a restaurant when they have such limiting restrictions on their diet. After all, you can ask for special preparations, but there's no guarantee that the cook or chef will not accidentally spill a drop of peanut oil in your dish for example.

Not long ago I was in line behind a Muslim woman at Subway, and the 'sandwich maker' said I'd have to wait until her order was completely checked out before being served. Apparently doing both orders at once with the same set of gloves ran the risk of contaminating her sandwich.

Yup, don't worry about it, I'll just waste an extra five minutes sitting here so Mrs. Nopork can get the full scale Halal service.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

If a person needs or wants (or is religiously obligated to have) a specific diet, that's certainly their right. McD screwed up in saying they are halal when they're not. But if a restaurant has not advertised itself as such, then it is ridiculous for someone to expect their unique requirements to be met, just like it would be ridiculous for the restaurant to assume that person would remain a customer if their needs aren't met.

So it really comes down to how the restaurant positions itself. If Subway, even unofficially, tells its employees to cater to religion-specific requirements, then it's a pain for the employees, but the customers aren't being unreasonable. But if Subway does not specifically support kosher or halal or whatever, then the customers are being unreasonable in expecting it.

The tolerance for others being exhibited by so many here is just so very heartwarming. :?

Religion is a choice, not a race. These people have chosen to follow a specific diet of their own free will. They are free to do so, but society does not owe them any special accommodations for these choices.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

1) Nothing in AdamM's post implied that Muslims were the only ones, just that the Muslims were like that.

2) If you have strict dietary rules, don't fucking go to places that don't comply with those rules. To do otherwise and demand that they bend over to your rules is disrespectful, rude, and openly invites conflict.

Jackass, this entire case is about how McDonald's outright lied by saying that they DO comply with dietary rules and yet blatantly ignored those rules. So what was your argument again? Other than your obvious bigotry of course.

Not long ago I was in line behind a Muslim woman at Subway, and the 'sandwich maker' said I'd have to wait until her order was completely checked out before being served. Apparently doing both orders at once with the same set of gloves ran the risk of contaminating her sandwich.

Yup, don't worry about it, I'll just waste an extra five minutes sitting here so Mrs. Nopork can get the full scale Halal service.

Oh the horror! You were mildly inconvenienced by SOMETHING! You must be a fun guy to be around at railroad crossings.

At least aim your irrational rage in the right direction. Subway doesn't have to obey customer orders. If they don't want to be halal friendly, they just need to decline when the lady asks, or do so only when the place isn't busy. Subway decided to inconvenience you for that lady's benefit, so blame them. You could have walked out.

Sorry sir, we're not able to do that at this time. Please place an order or you're welcome to shop elsewhere.

I understand your religion, and I get that it's important to you. But the minute it starts adding cost to businesses which I have to defray? No thanks. You can either pay extra for the time and effort required to secure a situation you're comfortable with, or you can eat somewhere else. That goes for ANY religion or creed.

the board should be changed each time it comes into contact with meat, you're knives should be cleaned between slicing meat products and you should wear new gloves each time you touch a meat - or you are risking the customers health. cross contamination is the biggest reason for food poisoning you idiot. and people like you are too lazy to protect your customers which is your damn job.

ot: I'm quite surprised by the gag order, how did a judge ever think that was a good idea?

I used to work in the restaurant business, and we would occasionally get customers who would present a card listing what ingredients they could not eat. I would just want to ask them why the hell they would even go to a restaurant when they have such limiting restrictions on their diet. After all, you can ask for special preparations, but there's no guarantee that the cook or chef will not accidentally spill a drop of peanut oil in your dish for example.

Since you haven't lived through it, it's probably not good to start passing judgement on them.

If a peanut was the equivalent of cyanide, I'd agree with you... But if they have a fairly minor reaction instead, then the 99 times out of 100 that the restaurant doesn't screw up may make up for the 1% of the time that they have to pop out their epi-pens.

Why do you even concern yourself with their decision-making? If you want them as customers, you agree and do what you have to do. If you don't want their business, politely inform them that you can't comply with their requirements, and they will go elsewhere. Both sides have to make their own decisions.

The tolerance for others being exhibited by so many here is just so very heartwarming. :?

Religion is a choice, not a race. These people have chosen to follow a specific diet of their own free will. They are free to do so, but society does not owe them any special accommodations for these choices.

Religion is a protected status in the U.S. regardless, so yes in some contexts we do. It matters not whether you like this. Write your representative a sternly-worded letter.

However, as to private restaurants I'd agree that unless they advertise/present themselves as accomodating, they have no obligation to be. But McDonald's did, which is the issue here.

Some people have strict dietary rules. Stating that only Muslims have them is not proper. Hell, there are plenty of people who are extremely picky about their food (kids, for example).

Then they shouldn't go to public eateries. Eat at home where you can control how everything is prepared.

The tolerance for others being exhibited by so many here is just so very heartwarming. :?

You know what's funny? So many people who claim to be Christian and shove their religion down others' throats every day, object when other religions ask for the same recognition. I have always found that hypocrisy amazing so I'm hoping those objecting to how Muslims eat are atheists or non-practitioners, and not Christians.

The tolerance for others being exhibited by so many here is just so very heartwarming. :?

Religion is a choice, not a race. These people have chosen to follow a specific diet of their own free will. They are free to do so, but society does not owe them any special accommodations for these choices.

And? Why do we need to mandate tolerance for others that may think differently? Nobody ows anybody anything. But do you need to, just to act decently towards one another?

Honestly, read Adam's post again. He's in a tiff for being asked to clean his work station (something he'd have to do anyway), change his gloves (big whoop), and use clean tools. Oh, the horror.

I have never seen anyone demand to be served Kosher, Halal etc foods if the restaurant didn't advertise them as being available upon request. Where this straw man came from, I do not know, given that's not even remotely what this case is about.

For anyone that doesn't care to look up halal rules, Muslims are prohibited from consuming:

•pork or pork by products•animals that were dead prior to slaughtering•animals not slaughtered properly or not slaughtered in the name of Allah•blood and blood by products•alcohol•carnivorous animals•birds of prey•land animals without external ears(source)

The fact that many religions have prohibitions or specific controls regarding food isn't germane to the case. Personally, I think it's silly. But if a provider advertises compliance and doesn't, they should face the tort music. Too bad about the gag order: sounds pretty anti-common sense.

One would think - McDonalds should be -smarter- than this. Considering that their franchisee was clearly in the wrong through false advertising, they should be stepping back and letting the dust settle without damaging their reputation further by punitive litigation. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you always SHOULD do it.

McDonald's had the option to say "No, we are not going to cater to your pointless mythological compulsions."

Instead of doing that, they chose to advertise a specific product aimed at a specific population. Then they delivered something that was in all ways (except one) indistinguishable from the thing they advertised. Though that singular difference is entirely imaginary, it's definitely enough to qualify as false advertising. If you're going to get into the market of obeying the whims of someone's delusions, you'd better know how to play along.

Why the hell a judge thought it was appropriate to slap a gag order on someone just for disagreeing with the settlement, I have no idea. There's no way that makes sense.

I find it extremely difficult to be sympathetic to people who "can't" eat certain things because of their religion (any religion: muslims with halal/pork, jews with pork, christians with red meat on fridays, etc, etc...)

I find it extremely difficult to be sympathetic to people who "can't" eat certain things because of their religion (any religion: muslims with halal/pork, jews with pork, christians with red meat on fridays, etc, etc...)

Eating something "forbidden" only causes harm IN YOUR IMAGINATION.

That's great and all. But the solution would be to not advertise having Kosher, or Halal, or whatever if you don't plan on following through with whatever restrictions are entailed. False advertising is false advertising, end of story.